From CQ Homeland Security April 30, 2008 concerning the House HLS Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response:
Civil Air Patrol
Finally, the subcommittee approved, also by an 8-0 vote, an amended version of HR 1333, which would direct the GAO to research the effectiveness and efficiency for the Department of Homeland Security to use the reconnaissance, communications, response and rescue services of the Civil Air Patrol, a nonprofit auxiliary of the Air Force.
From the Library of Congress website:
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/6/2007--Introduced.
Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Defense to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions. Authorizes the Secretary to consider the use of such personnel and resources to provide: (1) aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking; and (2) capabilities to respond to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, search and rescue operations, evacuations, and transporting time-sensitive materials.
Directs the Secretary to consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities
Initial reaction to that text being it causes problems with posse cumitatus, serious legal/liability concerns, and authority issues that need to be worked out.
So now it's reduced to a GAO study. They're usually fair, but don't have a record of coming down on CAP's side. We'll see what the results are. Then see if that promts Congress to further action.
Basically, it's a delay tactic cause the original couldn't get passed. Why would DHS want this? It's making CAP avail to them on request secondary to AF missions, versus them being able to justify funding for their own air/ground/comm resources that are directly under their control all the time.
Now you got CAP working toward NIMS compliance, after that you'll see CAP on board with resource typing/credentialing. With all that done then absolutely DHS will make greater use of CAP, but don't expect it to mean more funding.
Quote from: DNall on May 02, 2008, 12:50:14 AM
Initial reaction to that text being it causes problems with posse cumitatus, serious legal/liability concerns, and authority issues that need to be worked out.
Actually it doesn't for at least a couple of reasons. Posse Comitatus prohibits the military from law enforcement activities
unless specifically authorized by congress. If the bill becomes law, they would be specifically authorizing CAP. Posse Comitatus also refers to the military enforcing state laws, and assisting Homeland Security in the manner prescribed doesn't involve state laws.
I really am surprised that anyone found this rather weak bill objectionable enough to throw a GAO study roadblock in front of it.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 02, 2008, 03:18:59 AM
I really am surprised that anyone found this rather weak bill objectionable enough to throw a GAO study roadblock in front of it.
It doesn't look like a roadblock to me.
From what I can tell the bill is basically directing the DHS to write a MOA with DOD to use CAP for Homeland Security missions. It's not directing DHS to actually do it, only to write the framework so it can be done.
So let's say the bill becomes law, DHS writes the MOA with DOD and then never actually uses CAP for DHS missions. Now congress has a GAO study in their hands which says DHS could be saving X number of dollars using CAP. So they call the DHS cabinet member up to the hill and ask him why he isn't doing just that.
It basically puts DHS into a position where they can't refuse to use CAP. That's how congress works. They can't tell an Executive Branch agency what to do, but they can pull on the purse strings and do a lot of intimidation and embarrassment.
QuoteDHS writes the MOA with DOD and then never actually uses CAP for DHS missions
Have you ever read an interagency MOA? They are generally loaded with enough 'if, ands and maybes' along with funding issues that they are pretty meaningless.
For an idea of what a CAP/DHS MOA might look like, here is the 2001 MOU Between USCG Aux, USCG, CAP and USAF (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg3/cg3pcx//administration/mou/CAP-2001MOU.pdf). Now how much activity did CAP get from that and why do you think one with DHS would make any difference.
Look at section IX. Liability and and X. Funding. In both cases, the parent service pays the freight not the supported agency. So will CAP and/or USAF fund CAP missions for DHS?
Keep in mind DHS already has several air services at its beck and call.
Frenchie, the roadblock is the GAO study, not the bill itself.
Quote from: Frenchie on May 02, 2008, 01:02:09 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 02, 2008, 12:50:14 AM
Initial reaction to that text being it causes problems with posse cumitatus, serious legal/liability concerns, and authority issues that need to be worked out.
Actually it doesn't for at least a couple of reasons. Posse Comitatus prohibits the military from law enforcement activities unless specifically authorized by congress. If the bill becomes law, they would be specifically authorizing CAP. Posse Comitatus also refers to the military enforcing state laws, and assisting Homeland Security in the manner prescribed doesn't involve state laws.
It's civilian laws, not just state law. The military couldn't enforce federal racketeering laws or anything like that. The bill also does not authorize CAP or the military to enforce immigration law. It directs the DHS Sec to seek MOU w/ SecDef to request support for XYZ. Several big differences there. Also, it must authorize at least AF if not all DoD, not just CAP, to participate in such actions.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 02, 2008, 03:18:59 AM
I really am surprised that anyone found this rather weak bill objectionable enough to throw a GAO study roadblock in front of it.
The roadblock here is DHS. Certainly they could write any kind of MOA they want & use it as much or little as they want. That's not really the point. The point is when DHS goes to congress asking for a billion dollars to fund their internal aviation & communications programs... if this bill is law then congress asks them why they need that money when they can use CAP. It doesn't have anything to do with the mission, it has to do with money & power. Just like everything else in Congress.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 02, 2008, 12:22:48 PM
Frenchie, the roadblock is the GAO study, not the bill itself.
I don't see how since the GAO study doesn't happen until the bill is signed.
Quote from: RRLE on May 02, 2008, 12:01:47 PM
QuoteDHS writes the MOA with DOD and then never actually uses CAP for DHS missions
Have you ever read an interagency MOA? They are generally loaded with enough 'if, ands and maybes' along with funding issues that they are pretty meaningless.
For an idea of what a CAP/DHS MOA might look like, here is the 2001 MOU Between USCG Aux, USCG, CAP and USAF (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg3/cg3pcx//administration/mou/CAP-2001MOU.pdf). Now how much activity did CAP get from that and why do you think one with DHS would make any difference.
Look at section IX. Liability and and X. Funding. In both cases, the parent service pays the freight not the supported agency. So will CAP and/or USAF fund CAP missions for DHS?
Keep in mind DHS already has several air services at its beck and call.
I work for the federal government and I read them all the time.
This was precisely my point as far as how I perceive how this bill is shaping up. Congress is well aware that just because a MOA is in place, DHS may still not use CAP services. That's why they want the GAO study so they can use it to hammer DHS if they don't. That's just my interpretation of what's going on.
It seems like we are already doing most of that. We are patrolling the US border, doing recon for law enforcement, etc.
Quote from: Frenchie on May 02, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 02, 2008, 12:22:48 PM
Frenchie, the roadblock is the GAO study, not the bill itself.
I don't see how since the GAO study doesn't happen until the bill is signed.
What is being said is that the bill has been amended to just instruct the GAO to do a study. The legislation as introduced to do an MOA would be no more.
It should be noted that the Congressional web page doesn't have the text of the amendments on line yet.
Quote from: Frenchie on May 02, 2008, 01:27:21 PM
This was precisely my point as far as how I perceive how this bill is shaping up. Congress is well aware that just because a MOA is in place, DHS may still not use CAP services. That's why they want the GAO study so they can use it to hammer DHS if they don't. That's just my interpretation of what's going on.
Exactly!! You want money for what? (waving GAO study) Why aren't you using this CAP resource over here to cut that number down to size?
DHS wants money/power over internal resources & missions. CAP is a competitor to them getting that.
This doesn't result in a DHS that's interested in using CAP for sexy missions. It results in a DHS that picks & chooses missions that are hard for CAP to do - during the week, short notice, pushing our legal/equip/training limits, req lots of extra trng... all of which results in the look of CAP not being up to the job.
Friendly nego btwn DHS & CAP/AF that lead to them coming to an MOU, or lead to coming to congress together on a bill are workable solutions. Forcing an agency to do something not in its own interests doesn't bode well.
Other then organizational loyalty (usually a fine thing), why is everyone assuming that CAP would 'win' the GAO study? DHS could very well state its requirements in such a way that CAP could not or maybe even would not want to meet them.
There is a old saying that if you tell a knowledgeable expert who is on the study committee, he can tell you what the result will be - before they even start.
And at the risk of thread drift, don't you think the recent events in PA just might have some influence on any study. That is a pretty big black spot to try and hide from a study committee.
The fact that it is going to a GAO study in the first place shows that there is very little chance of anything actually being done. I suspect that the study will focus more on the legal issues rather than operational capability.
Im curious. As a Mission/CD pilot in CAP, exactly what types of missions are you guys looking for from DHS?Im curious.
By DNall
This doesn't result in a DHS that's interested in using CAP for sexy missions. It results in a DHS that picks & chooses missions that are hard for CAP to do - during the week, short notice, pushing our legal/equip/training limits, req lots of extra trng... all of which results in the look of CAP not being up to the job.
Friendly nego btwn DHS & CAP/AF that lead to them coming to an MOU, or lead to coming to congress together on a bill are workable solutions. Forcing an agency to do something not in its own interests doesn't bode well.
This is exactly right. If you force yourself on an agency who doesnt want you, they are going to make you regret it. You will be a business forcing yourself on a customer and it isnt going to work. You start making a stink and trust me, you'll get the missions. And the first time you cant perform, or meet their quals, they'll wash their hands of you. Get some cooperation and things will come slowly.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 03, 2008, 03:55:44 AM
Im curious. As a Mission/CD pilot in CAP, exactly what types of missions are you guys looking for from DHS?Im curious.
The original bill spells out the scope of what is asked for (by CAP thru authors):
Quote from: HR1333...use of such personnel and resources to provide: (1) aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking; and (2) capabilities to respond to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, search and rescue operations, evacuations, and transporting time-sensitive materials.
Directs the Secretary to consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities
I would personally like to bring CAP into the mutual aid network as an AF federal resource. And build a relationship w/ FEMA for front end disaster assessment (air/grd photo recon & real time relay) & comm support (air P25).
Other then that I want to stay out of law enforcement or anything remote close or related to any form of it in any way. And I want to keep our primary focus on the AF primary domestic mission set - SaR/DR.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 03, 2008, 03:55:44 AM
This is exactly right. If you force yourself on an agency who doesnt want you, they are going to make you regret it.
This may or may not be true. There are many layers of management between the political appointee positions and the 1st line managers we'd be working with. So the opinions of one may not accurately reflect the opinions of the other. If CAP does their job reliably and professionally, the lower levels of management may very well like using CAP resources very much.
Next, everyone is assuming DHS doesn't want CAP and this may be a poor assumption. Every federal manager must work within a budget. Using CAP aircraft and crews is a very cheap way to get things done. The last few months CAP has been doing firewatch missions for the Texas Forestry Dept. They love to use CAP resources and used us extensively. If a federal agency's flying resources are stretched to the limit, they may welcome the addition of a cheap resource to augment what they already have. It's literally a way to do more with less, which rarely happens.
On the other hand, if congress cuts the agency's flying budget and forces them to use CAP, it may not be a good situation for anyone.
QuoteIf a federal agency's flying resources are stretched to the limit, they may welcome the addition of a cheap resource to augment what they already have. It's literally a way to do more with less, which rarely happens.
We're assuming that DHS may be bucking on this because they are building their own air force of light aircraft, both fixed and rotary. Recognizing that CAP could potentially do some of those jobs (but not all) could make it more difficult to get more money to expand their Homeland Security Air Wings. And while we are only a minor potential threat to DHS, these Air Wings are a large potential threat to CAP. Depending on the extent to which they expand these throughout the country it may negatively impact the need for the sort of service that CAP can provide.
Border Patrol and Customs (now essentially one and the same) both had their own air resources years before DHS ever came to be. Certainly both have bigger budgets since 9/11 and more aircraft now, but it's not as if they are inventing something that didn't previously exist.
Actually they are. They aren't buying little planes here and there but organizing large scale aviation units.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 03, 2008, 11:27:55 PM
QuoteIf a federal agency's flying resources are stretched to the limit, they may welcome the addition of a cheap resource to augment what they already have. It's literally a way to do more with less, which rarely happens.
We're assuming that DHS may be bucking on this because they are building their own air force of light aircraft, both fixed and rotary. Recognizing that CAP could potentially do some of those jobs (but not all) could make it more difficult to get more money to expand their Homeland Security Air Wings. And while we are only a minor potential threat to DHS, these Air Wings are a large potential threat to CAP. Depending on the extent to which they expand these throughout the country it may negatively impact the need for the sort of service that CAP can provide.
And here it is. We aren't a threat to DHS, they are a threat to us. Bravo.....thats the argument we need to go with. We need to get in on the action before its to late to play. Some of you guys never seem to amaze me.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 04, 2008, 02:02:19 AM
Actually they are. They aren't buying little planes here and there but organizing large scale aviation units.
Being someone involved in law enforcement aviation ( I know, that offends some of you) But exactly where are they organizing these "large scale aviation units?"
Last I heard they have organized three "Homeland Security Air Wings" along the northern border and had plans for 2 more. I can easily see them expanding the concept beyond border operations to other disaster response missions in the interior. We've discussed it in past threads which probably should be ressurected if further explanation is necessary.
Those air wings you speak of have 2 helicopters and 1 fixed wing aircraft each. They are primarily used for interdiction. It's not really different than what they are doing in the south, but on a much smaller scale. They have and will continue to have far more aircraft in the south. Even in the south, ICE has very few light observation planes. Most of their aircraft are fast planes like jets, turboprops, blackhawk helicopters, etc. They are not at all suited for the types of missions CAP is capable of doing.
Quote from: Frenchie on May 04, 2008, 03:59:57 AM
Those air wings you speak of have 2 helicopters and 1 fixed wing aircraft each. They are primarily used for interdiction. It's not really different than what they are doing in the south, but on a much smaller scale. They have and will continue to have far more aircraft in the south. Even in the south, ICE has very few light observation planes. Most of their aircraft are fast planes like jets, turboprops, blackhawk helicopters, etc. They are not at all suited for the types of missions CAP is capable of doing.
Don't forget the UAVs they INTEND to fly. [Don't know if they have any airborne yet...]
Quote from: DNall on May 03, 2008, 07:01:31 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 03, 2008, 03:55:44 AM
Im curious. As a Mission/CD pilot in CAP, exactly what types of missions are you guys looking for from DHS?Im curious.
The original bill spells out the scope of what is asked for (by CAP thru authors):
Quote from: HR1333...use of such personnel and resources to provide: (1) aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking; and (2) capabilities to respond to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, search and rescue operations, evacuations, and transporting time-sensitive materials.
Directs the Secretary to consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities
I would personally like to bring CAP into the mutual aid network as an AF federal resource. And build a relationship w/ FEMA for front end disaster assessment (air/grd photo recon & real time relay) & comm support (air P25).
That is currently being worked with FEMA.
QuoteOther then that I want to stay out of law enforcement or anything remote close or related to any form of it in any way. And I want to keep our primary focus on the AF primary domestic mission set - SaR/DR.
SAR and DR really aren't missions. Our mission is reconnaissance. What we're talking about is in which arenas are we going to employ the capabilities.
GC
It's a threat to the DHS budget cause its (on paper) an alternative to them buying more planes & paying for more trained crews. How can they justify UAVs at 40mil a copy & all the infrastructure to go with them when congress can waive around a study about CAP as an alternative.
I'm sure they got no problem with using CAP, but not when it's a threat to them getting what they want from congress. If that's the case, then they won't agree to it, and will set policy in such a way to prove it doesn't work for their requirements.
And, first line supervisors are meaningless. The guy you deal with on the other side at the tactical level may love CAP & everything we can do for him within his restricted budget, but he doesn't set policy & he can only use CAP within the limits imposed on him.
Thomas (the Congressional bill tracking site) still hasn't shown what the bill looks like now. It is still showing only the original bill and doesn't have text of any ammendments. The closest thing is that it has "(amended)" noted where it says it was voted out of subcommittee.
Incidentally, it still hasn't gone out of two other subcommittees it was referred to. I don't know enough about the process to know if this would hamper it moving forward from the other committee that has it though.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01333:
FYI, still no action since the House bill was sent to the Senate in June. Considering that we're running out of time on this particular Congress and the fact that not one Senator has signed on as a co-sponsor, its not looking like it will make it out of the Senate committee its in now.